this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2025
48 points (90.0% liked)
Canada
10206 readers
455 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Anmore (BC)
- Burnaby (BC)
- Calgary (AB)
- Comox Valley (BC)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Niagara Falls (ON)
- Niagara-on-the-Lake (ON)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Squamish (BC)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Whistler (BC)
- Windsor (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
🗣️ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
🍁 Social / Culture
- Ask a Canadian
- Bières Québec
- Canada Francais
- Canadian Gaming
- EhVideos (Canadian video media)
- First Nations
- First Nations Languages
- Indigenous
- Inuit
- Logiciels libres au Québec
- Maple Music (music)
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I do not remember a single part of the Liberal election platform that said "We won't cut funding in public services". The only thing I can remember being exclusively off the table were cuts to Provincial transfers.
It would be nice if the article cited those promises, but that is the Ottawa Citizen (Post media) for you.
Here's the platform.
I think it is important to read the whole thing and not cherry pick.
From the article:
I am not seeing a promise broken here. The departments are being asked to come up with savings, and those savings are not "Lay off everyone" as is being suggested by the Unions. We currently do not know what each department will look to trim.
I'd hardly call it "cherry picking" - "We are also committed to capping, not cutting, public service employment" is a complete statement unto itself, and constitutes an election promise. There's no ambiguity, and there are no caveats provided.
If you want to make the argument that they intend to reduce departmental budgets by 15% without cutting staff...I'm willing to listen to it, but I don't think it's likely to happen. And the departments don't appear to have been instructed to do so.
It is cherry picking because it ignores the entire context of the place you picked it from, including the last sentence of the paragraph: "As part of our review of spending we will ensure that the size of the federal public service meets the needs of Canadians."
The way I read this is, which is why context is important, "We are committed to capping employment where it is instead of hiring or cutting employees". This does not mean the need to cut employees will never exist, simply the priority will be operational budgets outside of employees.
Yes, they are committed to not cutting public service employment as per the Platform. Which means that the 15% of savings per department should not be employees. As of now, we do not know what is or isn't being done to save that 15%, and there has been no announcement of mass layoffs.
If it is needed to cut employees because they are redundant, and it does not impact service, I do not see that as breaking an election promise.
Again, nothing has been announced. Even the article itself can cite nothing concrete and simply assumes its points.
You're free to give them the benefit of the doubt. The union is not obligated to, and I'm inclined to think their concerns are very valid.
What inclines you to believe their concerns are valid?
I don't think it's possible to make budget cuts that huge without cutting staff.
Can you explain why?
Payroll is a large portion of any budget, and I haven't seen any credible claims that it's possible to cut round it, or that they're even trying.
What percentage of the Federal budget is payroll?
What credible evidence have you seen to support that it isn't possible to "cut round it"?
What credible evidence do you have that demonstrates the Federal Government isn't trying to avoid employment cuts?
Does it say 15% cuts in the platform? All I can see is where it says 2% increases.
Also, what else will 'save' 15% other than cutting jobs?
Read the article.
I have read the article. It doesn't answer my questions.
Are you sure about that?
From the article:
You should read my questions then, because this doesn't answer them
The answers to your question, from reading the article and the platform before asking:
No, it doesn't say that in the platform.
Ask the relevant Ministers who have access to the numbers, and the power to make decisions.
Neither has to do with the point that right now no one is being laid off, and departments are being asked to save money up to 15% over the next three years.
Well, the ministers aren't talking, but the unions and the PBO are.
Also the fact that departments were not asked to find only non-personnel cuts is another good indication that the warnings are correct.
Do you have anything concrete to back up the idea that all these indicators are wrong, or shall we go ahead and use Occam's razor here?
I am using the same information everyone else is spinning to come to my conclusions. The difference is I am not speculating for personal benefit, or fear mongering in order to defend my position.
Facts of the matter are clear.
The Liberal platform stated that they are committed to capping employment instead of cutting employment and “As part of our review of spending we will ensure that the size of the federal public service meets the needs of Canadians.”, and Government departments have been asked to save 15% over 3 years with no direct orders to cut anything specific.
If you want to play with Occam's razor be sure not to cut yourself attempting to ground your speculation and assumptions in something real.
Hold on - what is the benefit to the PBO here?
And if, as you say, there's no reason to expect job cuts, then what benefit are the unions getting from "fear mongering"?
Do you have something to add or are we done here?
I asked you to back up your assertion, did you have anything to back it up with? If not then yes, we're done here
I already did what you are asking, and I won't repeat myself again.
Take care.
Um no, you claimed that people were "fear mongering" because it is to their "personal benefit" to do so.
I asked what the benefit would be to the critics if they were just inventing a narrative rather than pointing to a genuine problem.
In other words, if it is reasonable to assume that Carney's government is not going to cut personnel, then what is the benefit to the union to say the opposite? Wouldn't they simply end up looking foolish and untrustworthy?
On the other hand, if it is reasonable to assume that the PBO and the federal workforce are being genuine, then yes, there would he a benefit to them to not lose their jobs.
But it's only in the latter case - where the PBO and unions are the ones telling the truth here - that there's a material benefit to them for speaking out.
Thus, your assertion contains a contradiction. I asked you to explain that contradiction. It seems you've declined to do so. Take care.
When you can provide a single piece of anything to support your point I am all ears.
Read the article.
Unfortunately for you, I did.
Notice how it says "could be difficult" and not "absolutely impossible".
You have now used up all good faith.
Take care.
Notice the language: "without significant cuts". The PBO did not say "without cuts". This implies that cuts are assumed, it's just a matter of degree.
Anyway you also still refuse to address the contradiction inherent to your claim about "personal benefit" to unions raising the alarm.
Not saying you're a bad faith actor whose entire purpose on these forums is to sow doubt and muddy the waters, but I am saying that your actions are virtually indistinguishable from someone who is.
Edit: huh, so another thing about the sentence you quoted is that it's not even a direct quote from the PBO. Here's a direct quote:
https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/carney-spending-public-service-cuts-pbo
Yeah, that was in June, they hadn't updated things yet and the 15% cuts hadn't been announced either
Again, not saying you're a bad faith actor, but